Yeah, exactly. I had a player at the weekend moan after I gave a foul that "you've been giving those soft ones all game" - to which I was able to reply " so why do you keep doing it?" In an otherwise fairly demoralising game, that was a high point!
Throw ins - just a couple of things
- Thread starter Wolf_Ref
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm fairly sure that people only "knew" what an incorrectly-taken throw was in the same way that they "knew" that a player standing in an offside position was guilty of an offside offence even if they weren't involved in active play.
The laws have never given any more detailed description of the exact mechanics of a throw, than they do now. Here for instance, is the law wording from 1903:
And from 1925:
1932:
1960:
1997:
As @ChasObserverRefDeveloper alluded to, none of these earlier versions of the law specified a release point (or talked about the trajectory the ball had to take after being released).
So I'm not sure that people could have known with any greater degree of certainty in the past than they do now, what an improperly-taken throw-in was, since the law has never been particularly precise about mechanics, in any of its incarnations.
It never needed to be. Because everyone was certain.
I think you're missing the point.
People would appeal for a foul throw and the ref would give it - with or without an appeal because everyone knew what a foul throw looked like.
How we got from there to here doesn't really matter, but now we have threads asking what a foul throw is, and some referees seemingly happy for players to throw effectively with one hand with the other as guide and/or impart spin because there's "no mention of spinning in the laws" (nor is there any word about "dropping"). The result is that where once everyone knew what a foul throw was, I'm not sure if anyone can be sure now (for the mechanics of the throw).
Last edited:
Go on someone - when did this become legal? Did I miss a change in the law?
Last edited:
LothianRef
Member
Legal or illegal? Because a foul throw is given in that clip.Go on someone - when did this become legal? Did I miss a change in the law?
Kes
I'll Decide ...
And therein lies the problem. A "foul throw" was given. (By which referee I don't know).Go on someone - when did this become legal? Did I miss a change in the law?
So, in your own words, explain which part of Law 15 that throw wasn't compliant with please.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
R seems to be indicating it was improper as a spike. But that just ain't anything close to the kind of spike I think can be defended as improper. I see that as just a flat out wrong call.
Turning it around, what in law makes that throw illegal?Go on someone - when did this become legal? Did I miss a change in the law?
I didn't ask whether it was legal or illegal.
I asked when it became legal.
Some EPL refs still think it's illegal.
I'm complaining that the interpretation of the law changed (from a time when that throw would always be given as a foul throw), and no-one can say when it changed. And no-one can now say whether a throw from "over the head" means while it's over the head, or any time thereafter. And (see above) young players apparently must be taught to throw in the way it always meant, just in case they get a referee who thinks that's what it still means.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. People didn't "know" what a foul throw was then, at least not to any greater extent than they do now. Lots of people (though by no means everyone) thought they knew, based on various and sundry preconceived notions of things which are not contained in the law, which is a different thing.
One of the first things I realized after becoming familiar with Law 15 (and even more so, after learning its history) was that many of the preconceived ideas I had developed (over years of simply playing and watching the game) as to what a so-called "foul throw" was, were wrong.
Once I became a referee I tried to implement that newly-acquired knowledge and right from the start, I made it a habit not to penalize throws simply because they "looked wrong" but only when the requirements of the law were not actually met.
As I always refereed mostly youth games, where teaching the laws is a facet of what we do, I developed a little mantra which I would repeat to players (especially younger ones) of, "Both feet on the ground, both hands behind the head."
Not a perfect summation I know, but since most players had apparently been coached to keep both feet behind the line, I found that if those two requirements were also met, about 99.9% of throws would be correctly taken.
I think you've illustrated my point! For "preconceived", read "what had been understood since the law was written".
Years after thinking you knew (like everyone else) what a foul throw was, you think "oh, the law says over the head but doesn't mean release it over the head".
So it's your fault...
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The first six posts in this thread answered the original point made . . . and now it's become Bloovee tilting at windmills, getting nowhere because the answers are all "ITOOTR", and all this at a time when Manchester City fans have other matters to worry about.
They're very rare and usually for the generally accepted idea that if you throw the ball down towards the ground it's a foul throw. Based on the spirit behind the language in the LOTG
They don't generally bring the ball down in front of their head before releasing it
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I liked Martin Atkinson's response to the moaning, "Don't shout at me. It wasn't me, shout at him!"
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
"Just odd"? Who makes the decision? The referee. Based on what? Their opinion.